I've never seen a Theory Of Everything which includes the word "nose" before.

Hopefully that indicates the terminology used is not over your head. I kept it simple, because I could.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

† †All of that last bit quoted from you is speculation without the slightest grounding in empirical data.

As noted at the outset, you do not have the biology right concerning the citric acid cycle. You don't even get simple things right that Wikipedia gets right. Your use of a bizarre alternative citric acid cycle as a point of "verification" for your claims about "molecular intelligence" indicates that "molecular intelligence" is premised upon a biology that we know does not correspond to the terrestrial biology that we have on hand.

I can see a few scenarios following.

(1) Declare that you are actually describing the "real" citric acid cycle, never mind what Wikipedia and biologists have said, and that therefore no change in your concept of "molecular intelligence" is necessary. This leads others to further solidify a classification of you as a Timecube-like source of information.

(2) You alter your description of the citric acid cycle to come a little closer to actual observed biology but make no changes in your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads to others coming to a conclusion that either the example has no relevance to your concept (since such widely divergent descriptions of the example supposedly "verify" the same concept), or that the concept is detached from any empirical approach whatsoever.

(3) You excise the citric acid cycle as an example of "molecular intelligence" without altering your concept of "molecular intelligence". This leads others to wonder why a supposed verification can be cut without consequence to the concept that supposedly was verified.

(4) You alter both your description of the citric acid cycle and your concept of "molecular intelligence" in such a way that the changes in the citric acid cycle description have clear correlated changes in the concept. This leads others to re-evaluate their initial assessments of your work.

What you found is described in this and similar origin of life articles and papers that are referenced from the theory:

[...]

The issue is not whether you referenced sources; it is whether you understood them. The evidence says that you don't understand them. I've already seen the item in your list that was also referenced in the Wikipedia article. As I noted, it does not support your original description.

†

Quote

There is more detail and this illustration in the full version of the theory: †

[...]

Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

†

Quote

I can now see how quickly summing it up that way can cause confusion.

You have a remarkably obtuse way with words. The "confusion" is quite evidently that you haven't understood what your sources have to say about biological topics.

†

Quote

†Looks like I better include more detail, and put the illustration back in.

The problem is not a lack of detail, the problem is a lack of understanding and accuracy.

†

Quote

In the opposite direction of the cycle there is of course disassembly, as opposed to assembly. †

Another that better shows how the reverse cycle makes a structurally mirror image molecule that next splits in half is here:

[...]

You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:

†

Quote

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

You were talking about the citric acid cycle. Offering a graphic of the reverse citric acid cycle is not relevant to a claim concerning the citric acid cycle.

Plus, you need to be more specific: what step in the process are you claiming involves something that is split in half to produce two identical molecules? Where is it? What is the name of the dimer you are talking about?

†

Quote

The theory is correct in saying that this type of cycle is something that can be controlled, hence meets the first requirement of 4 that qualifies a system as intelligent.

Big whoop. Stuff existing that *could* be controlled is not an issue. Finding stuff that *requires* a "designer" of the sort who also happens to have setting universal constants in his toolkit is.

At least we have resolved which response strategy you would select. You picked option (1), the "Timecube" emulation option. I'll adjust my opinion accordingly.

Gary, you seem to have dropped a thread.

You used the citric acid cycle as an example verifying your concepts, except that what you described isn't the citric acid cycle.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. †I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. †If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 03 2012,05:13

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. †I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. †If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. I like you.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"? †What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Look, GG, just because you label something "intelligent" doesn't make it so.

Let's start at the bottom:

The "Behaviour of Matter" box.

By "matter" I'm guessing you mean organic and/or inorganic molecules? In a cell? Outside a cell/organism? Or matter that has been ingested?

What does "Address memory for next motor action" mean?

What "memory"? †What, exactly is it? Where do we find it? How big is it? How do we measure it?

What is doing the addressing?

What "motor"? You mean the behaviour of atoms and molecules that's already incorporated into modern chemistry and physics?

This is all just 21st-century steam-punk window-dressing for elan vital isn't it, Gary?

(okay i have to admit, this chew toy is fresh)

Judging by the silicon in his diagram I think he's trying to make one of these:

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. †I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. †If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. †I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. †I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. †If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. †I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

I'd like to see a Grand Unification of this theory with Booby Byers' "death by Satan, car crashes and the planet leaving its orbit" findings. At last, a research program for ID...

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.- FTK

Things like that make me wistful for the days of Peak Intelligent Design.

"My boy, did I ever tell you about the golden age? When the tard was as bountiful as the ocean, it sprung from the ground, it fell from the sky, it poured out of every nook and cranny, and it felt like it'd never run out. The disco tute pretended to fund science, and Doug Axe pretended to do it...code monkeys claimed to be better biologists than biologists...every week, a new calculation or Capitalized Term...You couldn't swing a cat without hitting a Luskin or a Cordova...ah, those were the days...."

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. †I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. †If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

You're a sick, evil bastard, Freddie. †I like you.

And I like you too, JohnW!

What's really sick is that this is the best thing I have to do on a Friday night - I have to get out more.

I would pay good money to see Gary Gaulin fight Gordon E. Mullings of Manjack Heights.

I'd like to see a Grand Unification of this theory with Booby Byers' "death by Satan, car crashes and the planet leaving its orbit" findings. †At last, a research program for ID...

You gotta get whatsisname's "invisible holograms" in there, too. An ID mashup, as it were.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Gary - I know of someone who is a leading light in the ID movement. †I have contacted him and he will be more than pleased to help you construct your theory and arguments more clearly, using many carefully structured paragraphs and stock phrases, and using indentations, PSs, colours, parentheses and PSs as well as copious PSs appropriately.

If you can travel tomorrow I have taken the liberty of buying you a business class ticket in advance ... just print and take this to the check-in counter for validation.

PS. Due to recent circumstances you might have to divert to the nearest island and take the Ferry over but, trust me, it will be safer. †If the worst does happen then at least you can rest safe in the sure knowledge that someone will be at hand to report on the crisis (minute by minute, with photographs).

Neither Boston nor Montserrat are on Planet Source Code. Still, POTW.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

In general awe is directed at objects considered to be more powerful than the subject, such as the breaking of huge waves on the base of a rocky cliff, the thundering roar of a massive waterfall. The Great Pyramid of Giza, the Grand Canyon, or the vastness of open space in the cosmos are all places or concepts which would typically inspire awe. (Wikipedia)

Witnessing an exceptionally great mind in action is a privilege not bestowed on everyone. I stand in awe.

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

I did not realize I still had one floating around from way back in 2009. †But I think you might have found a special one. †Let me check..

Yes! †It's the ID-free Origin Of Intelligent Life blog, for Christmas! that I made for Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who hate ID. †The title ďOrigin Of Intelligent LifeĒ was a good clue it is not the ďTheory of Intelligent DesignĒ. †

With this illustration there too it's clearly visually showing what I am explaining. At most missing the symbiosis part about the forward cycle gaining energy by undoing the assembly work of the reverse Krebs that can then assemble more:

† † †

Quote

Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.

At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.

No versions mention citric acid cycle. †I make sure (Jack) Krebs is there, like he should be. †But since you do not believe that it is important to first study the theory you are supposed to be fairly judging it is no wonder I'm stuck in another henpecking semantics argument and this even though there was also a link to view in Google-Viewer at the Theory of ID download address:

† †

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)

Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.

I must say, that at least your timing goes perfect with the link to the movie trailer for the new Christmas movie. † Here I am trying to explain Heiserman, Trebub, and others known all over intelligence related sciences. †Itís very basic material, not PhD level stuff. †Itís already a damn shame in the first place that someone promoting themselves as an expert in how intelligence works does not even know modern day basics kids know about too these days because of resources like BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, Mechanics) where David Heiserman and others are found. †And considering you are supposed to know all about whatís going on, not knowing who I am does not score any points in the science arena either. †And resorting to intellectual snobbery was a dumb idea. †But picking the ID-free chewtoy was in my opinion brilliant!

Under your scientific leadership, the kids of the world were at least immediately in danger of being scientifically bored to death. †I do though take the years old topics that linger in the forums as more evidence that the ID controversy actually ended around 2009. †With the theory working out scientifically there was no need for political protest, had science work instead. †Kathy had to make sure teachers in her district knew about the self-assembly demonstration via copy-machine, while kept things interesting at the KCFS forum for more original ideas for science teachers, that came from the wreckage of the hearing that went bad for them. †Itís hard not to be impressed. †And where students soon giggle because you canít figure out what they already know, itís a compliment to whoever could have them understanding all that by high school, and the students too of course.

At least (quality over quantity) Jack has no need to envy all the traffic this forum received over the years. †Or worry all that much about ones most ahead right now in understanding the theory include Kansan creationists that he was on a mission to scientifically educate, somehow. † Having the whole ďTheory of Intelligent DesignĒ pop out of the incubator is now just indication of unimaginable success. †Not that the ID-free ďOrigin of Intelligent LifeĒ wasnít also a great idea and novel Christmas gift, for a science forum that normally gets nothing for Christmas at all. †I'm at least thrilled to see that you had no problem finding it either.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. †But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. End up reading: †

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. †The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. †And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. †The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

this is all about surfing? †that actually makes more sense than it being about science....

You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever, and in any hands the Theory of Intelligent Design is one of those things that accidentally lights fuses of one kind or another, wherever it goes. †Already had enough wreckage to clean up. †Some here seriously need immediate music appreciation lessons, real bad.

In the Sheryl Crow Soak Up The Sun song/video the main message is to LIGHTEN UP!!! †Especially when I'm still the king of me, you have a fancy ride, but baby I'm the one who has the key.

In this more intense one, what do you see happening in the (commercial free) Muse - Uprising video?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary sweetie, you know that you would really go a long way if you just ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS regarding your uh.. ehm.. theory/programme/hypothesis/thing.

Sorry for insisting but the answers to the questions will give all of us here some very good insight into what it is you are going on about.

So here they are again, so you don't have to go searching for them.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between (answer yes/no):

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation. †But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

Ah one last thing if you wish to define terms such as "intelligent design" and "designed by nature" please feel free to do so. Just so you know if you use the above two as synonyms them you have a serious problem and we know where to start in addressing it.

Also it would also be really dandy if you could answer Wesley R. Elsberry and oldmanintheskydidntdoit.

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. †End up reading: †

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. †The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. †And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. †The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

Gary, one of the main arguments for "ID" is the alleged presence and scientific measurability of "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" in things in nature. Therefor, questions about alleged "CSI", "FSCI", "dFSCI", and/or "dFSCI/O" should be considered scientific by you and all other ID proponents.

So, can and will you measure the alleged CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, or dFSCI/O in a banana, a frog, and a rock and show your calculations?

--------------Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

this is all about surfing? †that actually makes more sense than it being about science....

You are now in the middle of a culture war that is older than the Discovery Institute and expected to go on forever,

True enough. What we are decidedly *not* in the middle of though, is a scientific debate.

What we are most decidedly *not* in the middle of with you, specifically, is a scientific controversy or even discussion. You're not doing science, your word salad has no meaning, and no one is taking you seriously.

You don't know what a theory is, you can't convey a coherent thought about seemingly anything, and you don't know the Citric Acid Cycle from the fucking spin cycle. Yet, you think you're about to overturn 150 years of real biological research in favor of.. what, exactly? Goddunnit? Consciousnessdunnit?

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

The best I can do is say that if the intelligence is not the source of what you qualified as "random" then answer to one is yes.

Number 2 and 3 are still as ambiguous. †End up reading: †

2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by an apple3) a sequence designed by apple and a sequence that is apple designed

Without further information, it's nonsense to the theory. †The problem is in expecting scientific yes/no answers to questions that likely assume there is no intelligence in nature yet intelligence exists naturally, so right away there are paradoxes that only help show why ID arguments like this are inherently nonsensical to even ask. †And I'm honestly not trying to be evasive. †The logic of the theory requires unambiguous yes/no questions to answer, not generalizations from philosophy like "nature" and "designed by nature".

If my attempt at translating Gaulinese into English is close, I think he's just basically saying "everything is designed".

He just doesn't have the balls/wit/language skills to come right out and say it.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad